Seòmar agus comataidhean

The amendments in this group are progressive and positive, and I hope that the committee will look kindly on them.

Amendment 4 seeks to ensure that targets are set for 2030, and amendment 142 would ensure that waste is

“managed in line with the waste hierarchy”.

Amendment 143 would ensure that

“waste materials are managed as locally as possible, preferably in Scotland”.

Obviously, if the committee supports that amendment, that will signal that it wants waste to be managed as locally as possible rather than exported to other nations, so it is another example of a progressive policy.

Amendments 9 and 10 are on circular economy targets. Convener, you might agree that we might want to have circular economy targets in a circular economy bill. I will put the issue in context. The first target is that the Scottish economy will be 5 per cent circular by 2027. The Scottish economy is currently 1.3 per cent circular, which is below the United Kingdom level of 7.5 per cent and the global average of 7.2 per cent, so reaching 5 per cent would still mean that Scotland was below the global average on circularity.

The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are determined to be ambitious with such targets, which is why amendment 10 would set the 2030 target at 10 per cent. That might or might not be above the global average by the time we get to 2030, but it would at least take Scotland above the current global average. Those are relatively easy targets to meet, but I am happy to listen to any comments.

I move amendment 4.

Yes, certainly. I will not get involved in the wider commissioner debate, because that is a whole different conundrum. Therefore, yes, I accept that that is the case, but you can look only at what you have before you. If the committee believes that public bodies should take reasonable steps to prevent human rights harm, they will vote accordingly and support the amendment. If they do not believe that taking reasonable steps to prevent human rights harm is something that they associate with, they will vote against it.

In essence, the amendments in this group, including my own, aim to push on with the commencement of the regulation-making powers under the bill. The Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill was announced in the 2016-17 programme for government. Even if it were a truly transformational circular economy bill—which it is not—it has taken eight years and dozens of civil servants and agency staff to pore over details around the circular economy in order to push on with it. It is, indeed, an onerous task, but it has taken place over a gigantic period.

What is so far on offer in the bill, however, is an update of the 2010 “Scotland’s zero waste plan” and the “Making Things Last: a circular economy strategy for Scotland” document. It took eight years—we are talking about perhaps a decade’s worth of work to date—to produce an update to a plan. You can tell my exasperation about how it could possibly take so long. I appreciate that the committee voted against co-design last week, which could add time once the initial thoughts of the Government are published. Nonetheless, my five amendments in this group—amendments 175 to 179—offer a suite of options with regard to the issue.

I do not intend to move all or perhaps any of them, but I intend to discuss what is possible and to see whether the Government and the committee want to promote and get moving on circular economy policies of sorts, because we have had a long time.

Will the member give way?

I was going to save some of these comments until we get to the later group—

With regard to sharing best practice, it would be really helpful if, in advance of the debate around reusable nappies, in particular, the Scottish Government would publish its findings on communications in relation to real nappies; the lifecycle analysis and what individuals are required to do, and all the analysis around the absorbent hygiene product trials that Mark Ruskell referred to—there are two different ways of doing that—so that the committee has all the evidence with which to fully consider Monica Lennon’s amendment. That information will be very easy for the Scottish Government to find; indeed, I might have some of it, if I have backups of some emails. The Scottish Government will have the information on how much things cost, behaviour change and all those aspects.

On targets in the bill, I think that in previous sessions we have put targets in bills and have found that that allows us to hold the Scottish Government to account. If we put everything in a strategy, given the debate from last week and given that commencement will be two years after royal assent, a cynic might suggest that the targets in that strategy would be up for further debate post 2026.

I find it bizarre that the Scottish Government does not want circular economy targets in a circular economy bill and, indeed, that waste materials are not to be managed as locally as possible. Clearly, if it is not possible to include such targets, waste cannot be managed in such locations.

I think that it would be. Actually, the predecessor committee to this one, the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, spoke to Glasgow City Council back in 2016 about it underperforming with regard to household waste recycling. That was eight years ago and it is still languishing at the bottom of the table. To put it in context, there are issues in other councils. I do not want to focus only on Glasgow, but it is a good example because it is a large authority that is underperforming, which affects the household recycling rate for the whole of Scotland.

I am happy to press amendment 15.

Douglas Lumsden has given an excellent overview of all the amendments, including mine. I do not want to double up, given the time constraints.

It is important that circular economy targets are reviewed. If they are not met, we and the public deserve to know why and what actions will be taken.

Amendment 13 states that the circular economy act must be reviewed if net zero emissions targets are missed. We all recognise that, if our overall climate actions are not going in the right direction, we might want to take more action within the auspices of the bill.

Amendment 152 states that a public body must produce a circular economy plan for the Scottish ministers for approval. I hope that the committee and the Government agree that target setting, monitoring, reporting and enforcement are incredibly important. This group of amendments does just that.

The problem has been a series of changes to policy, policy direction and support for local authorities. Broadly, the Scottish Government has moved away from supporting local authorities in meeting the targets and is supporting businesses and other organisations. In terms of meeting the 50 per cent target, it is as simple as putting Glasgow City Council into special measures. Based on the latest statistics, its recycling rate is currently sitting at 27.6 per cent, which drags the whole of Scotland down. If you had a change in leadership in Glasgow City Council, you could very easily improve that and help the whole of Scotland.

It is quite a varied picture in terms of what councils are doing and how they are doing. A lot of it is not rocket science, so I am astounded that we are still talking, in 2024, about a 2013 target. It is almost frightening. I would go so far as to say that the Scottish Government has a far more sophisticated record on the delivery of ferries than it does on household waste recycling. To give you an idea, the recycling rate in Scottish Borders is 57 per cent and in Renfrewshire it is 53 per cent. Aberdeen City Council is at almost 42 per cent, so it can be done in a more urban environment as well.

The third amendment in the group, amendment 17, is to reach a household recycling target of 70 per cent by 2030. That one was introduced by me, and I think that it is certainly achievable. I could do it myself, so I am sure that the minister will be able to do it and will agree to that.

Amendment 18 goes back to a Scottish Government target, which I have codified as an amendment. I have not come up with that; it is what the Scottish Government has said. I am sure that members will all vote with what the Government has said. What is the point of putting any targets in, if you do not attempt to meet them?

Amendment 164 changes “may” to “must”.

Amendment 60 is about requirements for reporting on progress. I suggest, convener, that if we had that sort of reporting on progress, something would happen from the failure to meet the 2013 target. That accountability is what I would be looking for, because it is, in my opinion, completely unfair for some local authorities to be doing very well and investing in the area while others are not. That is an uneven playing field and I think that the Scottish Government should be reporting on that, and on where it is making interventions, as it has done in the past.